Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

Our understanding of the genome and DNA actually destroyed your theory. It showed that we were really dealing with information. In order to move from the less complex to the more complex we would need a mechanism that actually could increase information. Natural Selection (Darwin’s mechanism) has NEVER been observed to increase information so it cannot be a valid explanation anymore. To believe it is, is just a belief contrary to the evidence and is based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

I would like to begin by asking an obvious but necessary question of you Statler; How do you define ‘information’? Is it increases in genetic material? Or the presence of new genetic material?

In either case, increases in genetic material and thus information have been observed numerous times.

In terms of increased genetic material, see the following;

• Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira. (2001). Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111.
• Ohta, T. (2003). Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118.
• Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman. (2003). Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13.

Also, in terms of new or novel genetic material;

• Park, I.S., C.H. Lin and C.T. Walsh. (1996). Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35.

In light of this, it is clear that increases in genetic information have been observed and as such your assertion the Evolutionary Theory via Natural Selection is held in spite of the evidence is severely lacking.
I would further point out, that no ‘faith’ is required here.

We have evidence showing the mechanism and until this proved faulty, it stands in support of the theory.

As I pointed out above, Darwinism tries to explain a portion of the universe (life on Earth) by a mechanism that has never been observed to do what it is claimed to do. So it is absolutely a faith based system and just as much of a religious system as all the others.

Please see above, in fact the mechanisms for increasing genetic information have been observed by several studies and thus remain well within the realm of science. Even if this were not the case the fact that it is a scientific theory and thus falsifiable negates any need for faith.

That was not my only reason for believing Darwinism is a religion, Dawkins’ praise and worship for Darwin is just one line of evidence this is more than just science nowadays. Darwin actually has a cult following who will defend him and his beliefs vigorously (some of these followers appear to even post on this site haha).

Are you going to provide any evidence for this? Or is it just your opinion that there is some kind of cult based around Darwin as a man?

Once again, you confuse a passion for science with ‘worship’. Dawkins often speaks as to the beauty of the theory laid down by Darwin and thus Darwin himself however this is nothing but a deep respect for the achievements of the man.

No I just think it’s funny that people who claim to be so rational and open minded would stand up for a 19th century racist who stole his ideas from those who came before him. Not really someone worthy of praise in my humble opinion.

If only it were true that we were all valiantly defending Darwin as a man. Alas, we are defending evolutionary theory which unfortunately has meant having to refute your arguments about Darwin.
It’s actually quite sad that you have yet to grasp the simple concept that Evolutionary Theory has moved on since Darwin’s work.

Well it would make Evolutionary Theory just as responsible for the actions of the Nazi Scientists as Islamic Fundamentalism was responsible for the actions of the culprits on 9/11. So I guess it just depends on how much you believe the terrorists Islamic beliefs fuel their actions, but the two events are very parallel.

Well, there is clearly no link too impossible for you Statler.

Why don’t you explain the parallels between these two events, actually, never mind. I anticipate that all I would get is;

“Evolutionary Theory is a kind of religion just like Islamic Fundamentalism”

Of course this is an ignorant attitude, which blatantly mis-represents the nature of Evolutionary Theory with a ridiculous comparison.

Someone has a bit of a temper 

Indeed, my inability to deal with arrogant, disingenuous people is one of the flaws in my character.

So you don’t believe the quotes that came from Hitler’s secretary but you believe quotes that came from Nazis who were around him? Special pleading, nice.

Actually, I was showing how the quotes you posted were questionable based on the original source and the text from which you took them. I didn’t say I dis-believed them, just that I was aware of their limitations.
In the same manner, I didn’t say I believed the quotes from other Nazis, just that they were conciliatory with the personal works of Hitler. In essence I was remarking on the quality of these sources with reference to our discourse.

At best you can say that Hitler was a Christian when he wrote his book long before the Holocaust began. However, while he was actually killing millions of Jews and trying to take over the world he hated Christians Still doesn’t seem like the argument favors your position.

Oh, so now the best I can say is that while he was formulating his ideas and writing the book that stated his intentions towards the Jews he was a Christian?

Also, there is yet to be any conclusive report on Hitlers religious views during his reign so you cannot claim summarily that he ‘Hated’ Christians at this time – the matter is open for interpretation but it is clear that his ideology was influenced by his religious views.

Besides, I am sure you are aware that someone calling themselves, “A Christian” does nothing to make themselves a Christian. They have to also genuinely believe the key tenants of the Christian faith, one of which is love your enemy and forgive your trespassers. Obviously Hitler believed none of this, so it is beyond clear he was never a Christian. Just like if someone said, “I am an Atheist but I believe God exists”, I would hope you would not believe this person’s claim that they are a true atheist.

No True Scotsman . . .

So when you fail to prove he was in fact an Atheist as you asserted you resort to a fallacy rather than admitting your error. It’s sad you can’t just accept it, after all whatever Hitler orientation, it would not make him the ‘poster child’ for that group.

Are you really trying to logically prove that you cannot logically prove anything? Haha. Nice! I have not seen that one on here.

No, I was simply stating the nature of logical proofs to you Statler. Namely, that for any logical argument to provide ‘ proof’ it must be both logically valid and the premises used must be sound. If this is not the case the argument, valid logically or not does not represent [i]proof[/].

As for your ‘proofs’ – They have already been refuted on the grounds of unsound premises by other posters.

Cheers

Sam

---

Ok, I am not replying to every point in every poster's response. There are way too many, and not enough hours in the day. Does anyone have any one particular point they want addressed? If not, then I will just pick one or two from each post and I will address them. Seems fair to me.

It doesn't seem fair to me. If you want to come here, spouting bullshit with no supporting evidence that's fine but don't just try and dodge the arguments you struggle with.

Cheers

Sam